Intercreditor agreements between secured creditors are intended to limit the potential for litigation and result in predictable commercial outcomes with respect to recoveries from collateral in enforcement actions and bankruptcies. Despite the extensive drafting efforts of sophisticated counsel to eliminate ambiguities in these agreements, the interpretation of intercreditor agreements has been the subject of substantial bankruptcy litigation.

What should your company do if faced with a statutory demand or a winding up petition? Time is of the essence where there is a threat of formal insolvency proceedings. If a winding up petition is being threatened it must not be ignored. The consequences that can flow once a winding up petition has been advertised can be devastating, both to the company's reputation and its financial position.

We identify some of the key considerations and steps that should be taken immediately so as to reduce any damage that a winding up petition can cause.

A company has outstanding debts and it seems they are struggling financially. What can you do to try and get your debts settled? Is applying to have the company wound up the answer? Here, we take a look at what you will need to consider before a decision is made and we take a look at the key steps in the process.

What is winding up?

Winding up is also known as compulsory liquidation. It is action taken by creditors of the company which (if successful) will result in the company ceasing to trade and being closed down.

In our update this month we take a look at some recent decisions that will be of interest to those involved in insolvency litigation. These include:

On November 8, 2018, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) issued a decision dismissing an involuntary chapter 11 case filed against Taberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd. (“Taberna”), a CDO, by holders of non-recourse notes (the “Petitioning Creditors”).

Parties involved in cross-border bankruptcy/restructuring situations may be wary of the risk that repeated litigation in different courts with jurisdiction over the same debtor will result in conflicting judgments. The principle of “universalism” is the theory whereby the decisions of one primary jurisdiction addressing a debtor’s bankruptcy/restructuring issues are given universal effect by courts in other jurisdictions.

On September 21, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision holding that the Bankruptcy Court had constitutional authority to approve the nonconsensual third-party releases contained in the debtor’s plan of reorganization. The District Court also dismissed as equitably moot all other issues raised on appeal by the appellant in connection with the confirmation order.

The consummation of a plan of reorganization typically involves a series of complex actions by the debtor and its stakeholders (for example, existing debt and equity are extinguished and new debt and equity issued in their place). If an appeal of a confirmation order is taken, and the appeal reaches the appellate court following consummation of the plan, it raises the difficult question of whether it is possible to grant effective relief to the appellant at that stage. As a constitutional matter, courts — including appellate courts — cannot hear matters that have become moot.

On August 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision holding that section 547(c)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides a defense to the avoidance of preferential transfers to the extent the transferee provided new value to the debtor,[1] does not require new value to remain unpaid as of the date the bankruptcy petition was filed.

In our update this month we take a look at some of the recent cases that will be of interest to those involved in insolvency litigation. These include: